Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

139442 (December 6, 2006)

Case Digest
Ownership > Ownership in General > Recovery of Possession and/or Ownership > Actions Available
to Owner > Recovery of Real Property > Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

Facts:

Reyes owned the lot rented by Dela Cruz for well over 40 years. In 1989, a fire struck the premises
and destroyed Dela Cruz's house. After the fire, Dela Cruz returned to the lot and rebuilt her
house. Reyes, however, made several demands to vacate the lot but Dela Cruz did not
comply. Despite the setback, Reyes did not initiate court proceedings against Dela Cruz.

In 1996, Reyes sold the lot to Tan Te. Despite the sale, Dela Cruz did not give up the lot. In 1997,
Tan Te sent Dela Cruz a written demand to vacate the lot, which the latter ignored. Tan Te tried to
settle the dispute but failed.

As a result, Tan Te filed an ejectment complaint with the MeTC against Dela Cruz. Dela Cruz filed
her answer and alleged that the MeTC had no jurisdiction over the case because it fell within the
jurisdiction of the RTC as more than 1 year had already elapsed from her forcible entry.

Issues:

Whether or not the ejectment complaint was a forcible entry case.

Whether or not 1 year had already elapsed from the forcible entry.

Whether or not the MeTC had jurisdiction over the complaint.

Held:

After the fire, Reyes merely tolerated the continued occupancy of the lot by Dela Cruz. When the lot
was sold to Tan Te, the rights of Reyes were transferred to the former, who for a time tolerated the
stay of Dela Cruz until she decided to eject the latter by sending several demands, the last being in
1997.

The ejectment complaint based on possession by tolerance of the owner, like the Tan Te complaint,
is an unlawful detainer case. A person who occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or
permission, without any contract between then, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he
will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against
them.

In such case, the unlawful possession is to be counted from the date of the demand to vacate. Since
the last demand was sent on January 14, 1997 and the action was filed in September, 8, 1997, the
action was instituted well within the 1 year period reckoned from the date when the last demand was
sent.

Since the nature of the complaint was one of unlawful detainer and it was constituted within the 1 year
period, then the MeTC had jurisdiction over the case.